randomguy wrote:
But which focal lengths are most useful for you? I have shoot bears, wolverines and eagles from hides in Finland now and every place I have been so far a 400 2.8 is better than a 600 simply because the 600 will be too long much of the time. So I don't completely agree with those who say 400mm is "sport" focal length and 600mm is for wildlife. For birds while not shooting from a hide however, a 600 mm sounds like a better bet.
800mm is enough for me for now, but 100% I would definitely love for reach for some small perching birds, through my 1yr experience, I've learn to give up attempting certain shots because i know it will turn out unusable due to crop and in certain places that I regularly visit on weekend I know the birds are very unapproachable despite many attempt to creep up to try and get a better shot, so I guess I prefer longer focal length than 800mm.
Since is a weekend/holiday hobby for me, I dont plan I getting a bird hide or camp all day at a waterhole or setup a feeding ground waiting for birds to perch on a branch I want in my composition.
Originally I made up my mind to wait for a 600 prime since I am also doing Deep Space Object (DSO) photography (current lens I use is a cheap Tamron 150-600 even though I own 100400GM, and teleconverters ), I rather have more reach than larger aperture (never had any regret not having larger aperture lens). Moreover teleconverter would worsen any chromatic abbreviation inherit from the lens itself.
It is only recently a very competitive pricing was offer whilst I was picking up accessories in store during a sales event, which I got me thinking again, and I dont plan to try and owned 2 telephoto primes.
Thanx for the info&links provided, I will pass on the offer given
Jan 26, 2019 at 06:23 AM
Previous versions of iamso78's message #14735963 « Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM images thread »
